I said probably less than 10,000 year because I am not a pseudoempiricists and Bible chronology was not really meant for dating the earth

Forastero, do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old (or 20,000 years, depending upon which Forastero we ask), or don't you?

Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000

why do y'all keep asking that?

You appeared to be equivocating.

Now that I have your kind attention:

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old? †By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 220,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 45,400x older than your wishful fiction?

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.

2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?

†

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05)

Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is.

3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age?

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html

Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N † but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 ◊ (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate

I can't claim credit for the original, which is due to Mark Isaak. 'Forastero' incorrectly attributed it to me while taking exception to a perfectly well-formed mathematical equation.

The point had to do with the deceptive tone of the whole article, which btw was easily proved wrong.

I said probably less than 10,000 year because I am not a pseudoempiricists and Bible chronology was not really meant for dating the earth

Forastero, do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old (or 20,000 years, depending upon which Forastero we ask), or don't you?

Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000

why do y'all keep asking that?

You appeared to be equivocating.

Now that I have your kind attention:

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old? †By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 220,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 45,400x older than your wishful fiction?

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.

2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?

† †

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05)

Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is.

3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age?

Again you are not showing your work on where any of these numbers are coming from. Iow, if you you want an answer, you'll have to provide a real question.

Again you are not showing your work on where any of these numbers are coming from.

"Again?" You're joking, right?

The assertion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old comes from you. And surely you are not disputing that the current scientific estimate of the age of the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years.

The ratios and percentages are ratios and percentages. They come from fourth grade arithmetic. Do you really need to have it all worked out for you?

In the event you do: Consider the (fictional) discovery that errors in radiometric dating have resulted in an overstatement of the age of the earth, such that the earth's actual age is just 10% of of 4.54 billion years (IOW, the actual age has been inflated by 1000%):

10% of 4.54 billion years is a mere 454 million years. 454 million years reflects the passage of 45,400 periods of 10,000 years. Ergo, even if the current scientific estimate of the age of the earth reflects a 1000% inflation of the actual number, corrected radiometric dating would indicate and earth that is 45,400x more ancient than your 10,000 year delusion.

Quote

Iow, if you you want an answer, you'll have to provide a real question.

Here's a real question:

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth and your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Here's another:

2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?

And here's one more:

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05)

Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is.

3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age?

[Edited for accuracy]

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

No. †I'm waiting for you to give me an example of a fossil fuel currently sequestering Carbon Dioxide.

currently as implied by your 'are' statement

sequestering the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

So, what fossil fuels are currently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?

And you still have even given any examples of your other routes, other than the incorrect use of 'char' which is pretty different from 'biochar', but I'll give you a pass on that one.

Again, not really-just more politically correct verbiage. Char is a broad term but char, charcoal and biochar are all carbon byproducts of pyrolysis. The only difference is that Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass. A vogue agroforestry technique is called slash-n-char. Most coal is about 75-90 percent carbon and Biochar is 80% carbon and both act as present sinks. And as I told you a few weeks back, fossil fuels may also be mostly made by pyrolysis. The same stuff that makes bio-char is also often used to make bio-oil, which is also used to sequester carbon.

Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf

You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'. There's a big freaking difference.

Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2?

Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages?

All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon? Really? Everything? The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide?

Hounding me in the name of science was common among the German SS, which developed out of primitive ego-defenses including, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists. Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissistís self-esteem or self-worth.

No. †I'm waiting for you to give me an example of a fossil fuel currently sequestering Carbon Dioxide.

currently as implied by your 'are' statement

sequestering the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

So, what fossil fuels are currently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?

And you still have even given any examples of your other routes, other than the incorrect use of 'char' which is pretty different from 'biochar', but I'll give you a pass on that one.

Again, not really-just more politically correct verbiage. Char is a †broad term but †char, charcoal and biochar are all carbon byproducts of pyrolysis. The only difference is that Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass. A vogue agroforestry technique is called slash-n-char. Most coal is about 75-90 percent carbon and Biochar is 80% carbon and both act as present sinks. And as I told you a few weeks back, fossil fuels may also be mostly made by pyrolysis. The same stuff that makes bio-char is also often used to make bio-oil, which is also used to sequester carbon.

Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf

You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'. †There's a big freaking difference. †

Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2?

Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages?

All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon? †Really? †Everything? †The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide?

Hounding me in the name †of science was common among the German SS, which developed out of primitive ego-defenses including, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. †The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists. Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissistís self-esteem or self-worth.

what, are you Dr Who or some shit?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

No. †I'm waiting for you to give me an example of a fossil fuel currently sequestering Carbon Dioxide.

currently as implied by your 'are' statement

sequestering the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

So, what fossil fuels are currently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?

And you still have even given any examples of your other routes, other than the incorrect use of 'char' which is pretty different from 'biochar', but I'll give you a pass on that one.

Again, not really-just more politically correct verbiage. Char is a †broad term but †char, charcoal and biochar are all carbon byproducts of pyrolysis. The only difference is that Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass. A vogue agroforestry technique is called slash-n-char. Most coal is about 75-90 percent carbon and Biochar is 80% carbon and both act as present sinks. And as I told you a few weeks back, fossil fuels may also be mostly made by pyrolysis. The same stuff that makes bio-char is also often used to make bio-oil, which is also used to sequester carbon.

Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf

You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'. †There's a big freaking difference. †

Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2?

Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages?

All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon? †Really? †Everything? †The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide?

Hounding me in the name †of science was common among the German SS, which developed out of primitive ego-defenses including, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. †The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists. Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissistís self-esteem or self-worth.

Surprise surprise... not a single link works.

Dude, let me ask you. Is coal, actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere right now? Is the gasoline in my car actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere right now?

Because that's what you said. It's not my fault if you cannot speak clearly.

Let's be very clear... NONE of the methods you state actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Biochar is just a method for fixing the carbon already taken up by plants and then dumping it in the ground. It does not actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Again, you, perhaps, should review what you write before hitting the submit button.

As far as hounding... I think the record speaks for itself. If you would answer questions when asked, then the rest of us wouldn't have to ask you the same damn question for 20 pages.

Let's get one thing clear, you are not a scientist. You hate science, you think all science is wrong. You are the most hypocritical of creationists, one who uses the tools developed by science to try and convince others that science is wrong.

BTW: I'm still waiting for the discussion on kinds and your research proposal to look for the 673 alleles of HLA-A in the human genome.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Again you are not showing your work on where any of these numbers are coming from.

"Again?" You're joking, right?

The assertion first that the earth is less than 10,000 years old comes from you. And surely you are not disputing that the current scientific estimate of the age of the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years.

The ratios and percentages are ratios and percentages. They come from fourth grade arithmetic. Do you really need to have it all worked out for you?

In the event you do: From the (fictional) discovery that errors in radiometric dating have resulted in a number (4.54 billion years) that overstates the age of the earth by 90% it would follow that the earth is actually that just 10% the age indicated by that inflated figure.

10% of 4.54 billion years is a mere 454 million years. 454 million years reflects the passage of 45,400 periods of 10,000 years. Ergo, even if 90% of the current scientific estimate of the age of the earth resulted from error, and the actual figure is just 10% of that number, corrected radiometric dating would indicate and earth that is 45,400x more ancient than your 10,000 year delusion. † † †

Quote

Iow, if you you want an answer, you'll have to provide a real question.

Here's a real question:

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth and your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old? †By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 220,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 45,400x older than your wishful fiction?

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.

Here's another:

2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?

And here's one more:

†

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05)

Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is.

3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age?

Yeah just as you guys wont except my population rates even with vast reference, you should practice what you preach; especially with so much politically influenced crank science and the fact that most Americans dont believe you 1 %ers and since radiometric dating has been exposed to vast problems right here in this very thread

No. †I'm waiting for you to give me an example of a fossil fuel currently sequestering Carbon Dioxide.

currently as implied by your 'are' statement

sequestering the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

So, what fossil fuels are currently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?

And you still have even given any examples of your other routes, other than the incorrect use of 'char' which is pretty different from 'biochar', but I'll give you a pass on that one.

Again, not really-just more politically correct verbiage. Char is a †broad term but †char, charcoal and biochar are all carbon byproducts of pyrolysis. The only difference is that Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass. A vogue agroforestry technique is called slash-n-char. Most coal is about 75-90 percent carbon and Biochar is 80% carbon and both act as present sinks. And as I told you a few weeks back, fossil fuels may also be mostly made by pyrolysis. The same stuff that makes bio-char is also often used to make bio-oil, which is also used to sequester carbon.

Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf

You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'. †There's a big freaking difference. †

Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2?

Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages?

All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon? †Really? †Everything? †The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide?

Hounding me in the name †of science was common among the German SS, which developed out of primitive ego-defenses including, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. †The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists. Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissistís self-esteem or self-worth.

Because that's what you said. †It's not my fault if you cannot speak clearly.

Let's be very clear... NONE of the methods you state actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. †Biochar is just a method for fixing the carbon already taken up by plants and then dumping it in the ground. †It does not actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Again, you, perhaps, should review what you write before hitting the submit button.

As far as hounding... I think the record speaks for itself. †If you would answer questions when asked, then the rest of us wouldn't have to ask you the same damn question for 20 pages.

Let's get one thing clear, you are not a scientist. †You hate science, you think all science is wrong. †You are the most hypocritical of creationists, one who uses the tools developed by science to try and convince others that science is wrong.

BTW: I'm still waiting for the discussion on kinds and your research proposal to look for the 673 alleles of HLA-A in the human genome.

Well they worked when I gave them to you on the page just before this one but I am always one step ahead of this SS propaganda game.

Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf

7) Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) - which is basically running the emissions from power plants through plant mass8) burial (of trees)9) biochar - heating of carbon containing plant material in zero-oxygen conditions to fix carbon, then bury it10) ocean storage - similar to iron and urea fertilization of oceans

Note that these all have a similar theme... increasing plant growth.

11) subterranean injection of CO2 gas12) carbonate minerals (not very efficient)13) Eco-cement - a modified cement that absorbs CO2 during the curing process14) chemical scrubbers - usually based on making carbonates

Note that these all have a similar theme... removal of produced CO2 during manufacture of CO2 as a waste product... with the exception of the Eco-cement.

On this list, I do not see absorption by fossil fuels. In fact, I would absolutely love to see a chemical reaction that uses fossil fuels to absorb CO2. That would be an earth-shattering event.

In fact, the only truly useful way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere is plant growth. Of course, as soon as the plant dies or is burned, then that CO2 is released. That's the entire point of biochar and burial. Take the carbon in the plant, fix it, then bury it.

If you read carefully that many biochar processes result in very, very useful fuels from charcoal to syngas. In this case, it would NOT be a sequestration technique, because as soon as you use the fuel, then the CO2 goes right back into the atmosphere.

In summary, biochar is not a method for absorbing CO2, it is a method for fixing it. Arguably, it is a sequestration method, but only when the resulting product is buried. If it is used as a fuel, then it it most definitely not a sequestration technique.

I'm still waiting on those fossil fuels that absorb CO2.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Hounding me in the name †of science was common among the German SS, which developed out of primitive ego-defenses including, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. †The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists. Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissistís self-esteem or self-worth.

Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined [URL=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rqqxMFkJj3oJ:202.118.250.111:8080/com_student/baogao/kelly-2.ppt+%22coal+sequesters%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh6nyMy_QW9GlN83y4tcsXUDvmJ4wSj0WLme2MDxGhMUaoTP8RQ03WrWw23tZ8BWFvMj7liyDLtmPSY-WqOj_

Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf

We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it?

I already told you that your assistance on little differences dont make sense because little differences build up Big Time when working with the age numbers needed for your religion

I haven't "assisted" upon anything. I've asked you to specify the magnitude of the errors YOU are alleging, and to support that allegation with reference to the literature you cite.

You are obviously unable to do that.

I've allowed you the hypothetical finding that radiometric dating has resulted in an figure (4.54 billion years) that was inflated by 1000% as a result of error. And I've asked, given the resulting corrected hypothetical finding that the earth is 45,400x the age of your Biblical surmise, whether would you conclude that such radiometric evidence would support your Biblical view of the age of the earth.

You can't or won't respond, for obvious reasons.

And you stated: † † †

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05)

Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is.

Which prompts me to ask how many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age.

Another question to which you can't respond, also for obvious reasons. Asserting that the errors you require would arise over millions of years through a fictional (and nonsensical) process of compounding doesn't help your case one whit. You need to demonstrate that those errors can accumulate in just 10,000 years - because that is all the time your Bible allows to you.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it?

I already told you that your assistance on little differences dont make sense because little differences build up Big Time when working with the age numbers needed for your religion

I haven't "assisted" upon anything. I've asked you to specify the magnitude of the errors YOU are alleging, and to support that allegation with reference to the literature you cite.

You are obviously unable to do that.

I've allowed you the hypothetical finding that radiometric dating has resulted in an figure (4.54 billion years) that was inflated by 1000% as a result of error. And I've asked, given the resulting corrected hypothetical finding that the earth is 45,400x the age of your Biblical surmise, whether would you conclude that such radiometric evidence would support your Biblical view of the age of the earth.

You can't or won't respond, for obvious reasons.

And you stated: † † †

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05)

Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is.

Which prompts me to ask how many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age.

Another question to which you can't respond, also for obvious reasons. Asserting that the errors you require would arise over millions of years through a fictional (and nonsensical) process of compounding doesn't help your case one whit. You need to demonstrate that those errors can accumulate in just 10,000 years - because that is all the time your Bible allows to you.

Boom goes the dynamite

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined [URL=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rqqxMFkJj3oJ:202.118.250.111:8080/com_student/baogao/kelly-2.ppt+%22coal+sequesters%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh6nyMy_QW9GlN83y4tcsXUDvmJ4wSj0WLme2MDxGhMUaoTP8RQ03WrWw23tZ8BWFvMj7liyDLtmPSY-WqOj_

Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf

I have answered your questions but your ego allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied.

Do you realize, that if you cannot successfully make coal in less than 100 years, then your entire timeline is impossible?

Yes, forastero, coal has sequestered carbon from millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. †That is NOT what you said...

<a href="http://" target="_blank">forastero</a>

Quote

ou †realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...

You said "are" as in right now. †I will admit that with a revised reading, we can say that fossil fuels are sequestering carbon, right now. †

Carbon sequestration is 'removal' of CO2 from the atmosphere... fossil fuels DO NOT remove CO2 from the atmosphere. †Will you admit that this is true?

Again, it's not my fault if you don't speak correctly and use correct terminology.

Yes they are sequestering carbon as we speak just as does biochar but the whole point was that new finding show that burning wood may release more carbon coal, which is just one of many challenges to Jon's and Tracy's assertion that carbon ratio perturbations began after 1947

We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it?

I already told you that your assistance on little differences dont make sense because little differences build up Big Time when working with the age numbers needed for your religion

I haven't "assisted" upon anything. I've asked you to specify the magnitude of the errors YOU are alleging, and to support that allegation with reference to the literature you cite.

You are obviously unable to do that.

I've allowed you the hypothetical finding that radiometric dating has resulted in an figure (4.54 billion years) that was inflated by 1000% as a result of error. And I've asked, given the resulting corrected hypothetical finding that the earth is 45,400x the age of your Biblical surmise, whether would you conclude that such radiometric evidence would support your Biblical view of the age of the earth.

You can't or won't respond, for obvious reasons.

And you stated: † † †

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05)

Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is.

Which prompts me to ask how many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age.

Another question to which you can't respond, also for obvious reasons. Asserting that the errors you require would arise over millions of years through a fictional (and nonsensical) process of compounding doesn't help your case one whit. You need to demonstrate that those errors can accumulate in just 10,000 years - because that is all the time your Bible allows to you.

Sorry but I have given several detailed descriptions that likely dismiss your question and you havnt responded to even one of them

Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined [URL=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rqqxMFkJj3oJ:202.118.250.111:8080/com_student/baogao/kelly-2.ppt+%22coal+sequesters%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh6nyMy_QW9GlN83y4tcsXUDvmJ4wSj0WLme2MDxGhMUaoTP8RQ03WrWw23tZ8BWFvMj7liyDLtmPSY-WqOj_

Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf

I have answered your questions but your ego allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied.

Do you realize, that if you cannot successfully make coal in less than 100 years, then your entire timeline is impossible?

Yes, forastero, coal has sequestered carbon from millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. †That is NOT what you said...

<a href="http://" target="_blank">forastero</a>

Quote

ou †realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...

You said "are" as in right now. †I will admit that with a revised reading, we can say that fossil fuels are sequestering carbon, right now. †

Carbon sequestration is 'removal' of CO2 from the atmosphere... fossil fuels DO NOT remove CO2 from the atmosphere. †Will you admit that this is true?

Again, it's not my fault if you don't speak correctly and use correct terminology.

Yes they are sequestering carbon as we speak just as does biochar but the whole point was that new finding show that burning wood may release more carbon coal, which is just one of many challenges to Jon's and Tracy's assertion that carbon ratio perturbations began after 1947

SO your claim is that the coal in the ground and the gas in my car are actively removing CO2 from the air... as we speak.

I'm just trying to confirm.

BTW: You still have an entire discussion on kinds you're running away from.

The whole point is your abysmal knowledge and logic.

Please, enlighten us with an example of a piece of coal absorbing CO2.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined [URL=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rqqxMFkJj3oJ:202.118.250.111:8080/com_student/baogao/kelly-2.ppt+%22coal+sequesters%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh6nyMy_QW9GlN83y4tcsXUDvmJ4wSj0WLme2MDxGhMUaoTP8RQ03WrWw23tZ8BWFvMj7liyDLtmPSY-WqOj_

Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf

I have answered your questions but your ego allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied.

Do you realize, that if you cannot successfully make coal in less than 100 years, then your entire timeline is impossible?

Yes, forastero, coal has sequestered carbon from millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. †That is NOT what you said...

<a href="http://" target="_blank">forastero</a>

†

Quote

ou †realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...

You said "are" as in right now. †I will admit that with a revised reading, we can say that fossil fuels are sequestering carbon, right now. †

Carbon sequestration is 'removal' of CO2 from the atmosphere... fossil fuels DO NOT remove CO2 from the atmosphere. †Will you admit that this is true?

Again, it's not my fault if you don't speak correctly and use correct terminology.

Yes they are sequestering carbon as we speak just as does biochar but the whole point was that new finding show that burning wood may release more carbon coal, which is just one of many challenges to Jon's and Tracy's assertion that carbon ratio perturbations began after 1947

SO your claim is that the coal in the ground and the gas in my car are actively removing CO2 from the air... as we speak.

I'm just trying to confirm.

BTW: You still have an entire discussion on kinds you're running away from.

The whole point is your abysmal knowledge and logic. †

Please, enlighten us with an example of a piece of coal absorbing CO2.

Well if you let your car sit without starting it up, it could possibly sequester a bit of carbon through some tiny crevices but nothing like a reservoir of fossil fuels

Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined [URL=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rqqxMFkJj3oJ:202.118.250.111:8080/com_student/baogao/kelly-2.ppt+%22coal+sequesters%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh6nyMy_QW9GlN83y4tcsXUDvmJ4wSj0WLme2MDxGhMUaoTP8RQ03WrWw23tZ8BWFvMj7liyDLtmPSY-WqOj_

Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf

I have answered your questions but your ego allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied.

Do you realize, that if you cannot successfully make coal in less than 100 years, then your entire timeline is impossible?

Yes, forastero, coal has sequestered carbon from millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. †That is NOT what you said...

<a href="http://" target="_blank">forastero</a>

†

Quote

ou †realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...

You said "are" as in right now. †I will admit that with a revised reading, we can say that fossil fuels are sequestering carbon, right now. †

Carbon sequestration is 'removal' of CO2 from the atmosphere... fossil fuels DO NOT remove CO2 from the atmosphere. †Will you admit that this is true?

Again, it's not my fault if you don't speak correctly and use correct terminology.

Yes they are sequestering carbon as we speak just as does biochar but the whole point was that new finding show that burning wood may release more carbon coal, which is just one of many challenges to Jon's and Tracy's assertion that carbon ratio perturbations began after 1947

SO your claim is that the coal in the ground and the gas in my car are actively removing CO2 from the air... as we speak.

I'm just trying to confirm.

BTW: You still have an entire discussion on kinds you're running away from.

The whole point is your abysmal knowledge and logic. †

Please, enlighten us with an example of a piece of coal absorbing CO2.

Well if you let your car sit without starting it up, it could possibly sequester a bit of carbon through some tiny crevices but nothing like a reservoir of fossil fuels

Ok, so you admit that fossil fuels are not 'right now' sequestering CO2. yes or no

Why not try actually answering questions for once?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

1. "assistance" instead of "insistence"2. a complete lack of understanding of the question (a simple math problem)3. "insisting" (I can uses teh Anglish) that he is correct on a young earth because the numbers work out when you take into consideration the billions of years it would take to happen....

We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it?

I already told you that your assistance on little differences dont make sense because little differences build up Big Time when working with the age numbers needed for your religion

Hmmm.According to you, forastero, the Earth is only 10-to-20 thousand years old. Assuming you're right about that, there's only been 10-to-20 thousand years of time for stuff to have happened on Earth. So if some particular Thing X takes more than 20,000 years to occur, that means Thing X can't have occurred, because (still assuming you're right about the 10-to-20 millennia deal) there hasn't been enough time for it to have occurred.Now.Whatever "errors" may exist in radiometric dating, those "errors" cannot have been accumulating for a longer period of time than the Earth has existed, right? And according to you, the Earth has only existed for, at most, about 20,000 years. Which means that any "errors" which may exist in radiometric dating, cannot have been accumulating for more than the 20,000-year upper limit for the Earth's existence. It's all well and good to make noise about how badly a radiometric date can be distorted by millions of years' worth of accumulated "error"... but in order for such an argument to make sense, there has to be millions of years of time during which that "error" can accumulate. Because if the Earth is only 10-to-20 thousand years old, the absolute maximum amount of time during which any such "error" could accumulate, is 10-to-20 thousand years.With me so far, forastero?If you're right about the Earth being only 10-to-20 thousand years old... it doesn't matter whether or not a given "error" could, over a period of millions or billions of years, accumulate enough to make a 5-digit age-of-Earth falsely appear to be a 10-digit age-of-Earth. Because in order for that "error" to have actually had millions or billions of years to accumulate, the Earth must actually BE millions or billions of years old.So, forastero: You want to say that "errors" accumulate to make radiometric dates wrong? Fine. But if you're tryna make a case for YECism, you'd damn well better make sure you're talking about "errors" that accumulate over a time-period no longer than the amount of time you want to claim Earth has existed. Because if you make noise about "error" accumulating over millions or billions of years... well, put it this way: If your argument is Radiometric dating is wrong because it's full of errors, and if you let these errors accumulate for billions of years longer than the Earth has actually existed, the accumulated error is big enough to make the true 10Kyear age-of-Earth falsely appear to be a biased Darwinian multibillion-year age-of-Earth, just how many non-YECs are going to buy what you're selling?